Magallona Vs Ermita

 

MAGALLONA VS ERMITA

418 SCRA 287

FACTS:

This Th is or orig igin inal al acti action on for for the the wr writ its s of cert certio iora rari ri and and proh prohib ibit itio ion n assa assail ils s the the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522, adjusting the country's archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories. The case is about the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state's sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties, and (2) RA 9522 opens the country's waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the country's nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions. On March 2009, the Congress enacts RA 9522 by amending RA 3046 due to the complaint with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. UNCLO UN CLOS S III prescr prescribe ibes s the waterwater-lan land d ratio ratio,, length length,, and and conto contour ur of basel baseline ines s of  archipelagic archipel agic States like the Philippines Philippines  and sets the deadline for the filing of application for the extended extended continent continental al shelf.

Complyin Complying g with these these require requiremen ments, ts, RA 9522 9522

short shorten ened ed one one baseli baseline ne optim optimize ized d the the locat location ion of some some base base point points s aroun around d the the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Grou Gr oup p (K (KIG IG)) and and the Scar Scarbor borou ough gh Shoa Shoal, l, as "regim "regimes es of islan islands ds"" whos whose e islan islands ds generat gen erate e their their own applica applicable ble maritime maritime zones. zones. Petitio Petitioners ners contend contend that that RA 9522's 9522's treatment of the KIG as "regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen. Petitioners are professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their respective capacities as "citizens, taxpayers or legislators". Respond Res pondents ents also question question the normativ normative e force, force, under under internat internationa ionall law, of  petitioners' assertion that what Spain ceded to the United States under the Treaty of  Paris were the islands and

all the waters

found within the boundaries of the rectangular 

area drawn under the Treaty of Paris.

ISSUE:

1. Wheth Whether er petiti petitione oners rs posse possess ss locus

standi  to

2. Whether Whether or or not RA RA 9522 9522 is uncons unconstitu titutio tional. nal.

bring this suit.

 

HELD:

1. Yes, Yes, the cour courtt recogniz recognizes es petiti petitioner oners' s' locus

standi  as

citizens with constitutionally

sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises rais es issues issues of nationa nationall signific significance ance necessi necessitat tating ing urgent urgent resoluti resolution. on. Indeed, Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other  litigants possessing "a more direct and specific interest" to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing.

2. No, RA 9522 does does not dismember dismember a large portion portion of of the national national territory. territory. It does not discard discards s the pre-UN pre-UNCLO CLOS S III demarcat demarcation ion of Philipp Philippine ine territor territory y under under the Treaty of Paris and related treaties, successively encoded in the definition of  national territory under the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones.

•

territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the baselines) contiguous zone (24 nautical miles from the baselines)

•

exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles from the baselines)

•

UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the world's oceans ocea ns and submarin submarine e areas, areas, recogni recognizing zing coastal coastal and archipel archipelagic agic States' States' graduated authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts.

The demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living resources within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international internat ional community since the delineation delineation is in strict observance observance of UNCLOS UNCLOS III III.. If the marit maritime ime delin delineat eation ion is contr contrary ary to UNCL UNCLOS OS III, III, the intern internat ation ional al community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.

The Court dismiss the petition, according to the court, the enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines' maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is

 

therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and our national interest.